Cambridge University Press 0521834872 - Politics and History in the Tenth Century: The Work and World of Richer of Reims Jason Glenn Excerpt More information INTRODUCTION On the second day of March 986, after a reign of more than three decades, King Lothar of west Francia died at the age of forty-five.1 Less than fifteen months later his son and successor Louis, just twenty years old, followed his father to the grave, his death perhaps the result of injuries suffered while hunting.2 Louis left behind neither sons nor legitimate brothers. Lothar’s brother Charles, duke of lower Lotharingia, thus pressed his own claim to the throne.3 His family, known to us as the Carolingians, had ruled the kingdom almost continually since the middle of the eighth century, but in the tenth century heredity mattered only so much in royal succession. The Frankish magnates elected – or more precisely, participated directly and actively in the succession of – their kings and, even if the power and prestige of the Carolingian line often led them to choose one of its scion, it was not unprecedented for them to raise a non-Carolingian to the throne.4 In the summer of 987, Charles was 1 For the date of Lothar’s death, see Lot, Derniers, 164, in partic. n. 1. Lot’s work remains the most comprehensive study of Lothar’s reign. For more recent studies of his reign, the events described in this paragraph and, more generally, west Frankish politics during the period covered by this study see also NCMH, iii: 372–455, in particular Dunbabin, “West Francia, the Kingdom,” 372–397; Dunbabin, France in the Making, 17–123; Ehlers, Muller,¨ and Schneidmuller,¨ eds., Die franzosischen¨ Konige¨ , 13–98; McKitterick, Frankish Kingdoms, 258–277 and 305–339; Sassier, Hugues Capet, 139– 198; Schieffer, Die Karolinger, 212–219; and Werner, Origines, 469–561. These accounts of the Capetian accession are all based, principally, on the works of Richer of Reims and Gerbert of Aurillac: Richer, Historia,ff.38r–57v, iii.67–iv.109, 206–309; Gerbert, Correspondance, passim; and a series of accounts of episcopal synods written by Gerbert and published as Acta Concilii Remensis, in MGH, SS, iii: 658–693. 2 Lot, Derniers, 196, and subsequent scholars have accepted uncritically the sole account of the cause of Louis’ death which is found in Richer, Historia,ff.42v–43r,iv.5, 234–235; see, for instance, Sassier, Hugues Capet, 194. As we shall see below and throughout this study, more caution in the use of such details is perhaps prudent. Nevertheless, while we have no evidence to corroborate the cause of Louis’ death, I am inclined to agree with Lot, Derniers, 166, that we should be dubious of eleventh-century accounts that he was poisoned. 3 Following Reuter, NCMH, iii: 388,n.49, throughout this study I refer to Charles as “Charles of Lotharingia” rather than the more frequently used “Charles of Lorraine,” since lower Lotharingia does not correspond well to the Lorraine of today. On Charles and his attempts to claim the throne, see below, Part II. 4 On the relative importance of heredity, election, and, for that matter, anointing in tenth-century west Francia, see Bezzola, Ottonische Kaisertum, in partic. 117–123; Dhondt, “Election´ et her´ edit´ e”;´ 1 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521834872 - Politics and History in the Tenth Century: The Work and World of Richer of Reims Jason Glenn Excerpt More information Politics and History in the Tenth Century passed over when a gathering of magnates led by Archbishop Adalbero of Reims elected Duke Hugh Capet as their king. Hugh was anointed and crowned shortly thereafter, probably in July.5 Hugh, who eventually lent his surname to the Capetian dynasty which ruled continuously until 1328, had been among the most powerful of the magnates for more than two decades and could boast a prestigious ances- try, even a royal pedigree.6 From the late ninth century, his ancestors, also known to us as Robertians, had both cooperated and competed with the Carolingians in the zero-sum game of power politics within the west Frankish lands.7 His father, branded Hugh the Great (†956), dominated the political landscape of west Francia during the middle decades of the tenth century.8 His grandfather Robert (922–923) had been raised to the throne and ruled briefly in the early 920s until he was killed in a battle with the Carolingian king against whom he and his supporters had rebelled. Thirty years earlier that king, Charles the Straightforward (893– 929), had himself pressed a hereditary claim to the throne and become king in an act of rebellion against Robert’s brother, Hugh Capet’s great- uncle Odo, who ruled for a decade from 888 to 898.9 Ehlers, “Karolingische Tradition”; Schneidmuller,¨ Karolingische Tradition, 81–91; Sot, “Her´ edit´ e´ royale et pouvoir sacre´ avant 987”; and Werner, “Les sources de la legitimit´ e´ royale.” Note also that in my qualification of the magnates’ role as participation rather than election per se, I follow the thoughtful presentation of Nelson, “Rulers and Government,” in NCMH, iii: 102. 5 The date of Hugh Capet’s anointing is difficult to determine with certainty. Most recently, Sassier, Hugues Capet, 194–198, and Bautier, “L’avenement,”` 29, have argued for 3 July 987; the latter’s discussion and bibliographic notes present the views held by previous scholars, among whom the most important are Lot, Derniers, 211–212; Havet, “Les couronnements des rois Hugues et Robert”; and Lemarignier, “Autour de la date du sacre de Hugues Capet.” In addition to those works cited above, on the accession of Hugh Capet, see Huth, “Erzbischof Arnulf von Reims.” 6 On the surname “Capet,” see Lot, Derniers, 320–322. The surname first appears in our sources during the second half of the eleventh century. It is possible that the surname was also used by their contemporaries since, as Lot suggests, the name was also applied to his father, Hugh the Great, and derived from their possession of the monastery of Saint Martin in Tours where the cape (cappe) of the saint was stored. In any event, for recent overviews of Capetian France and bibliographic orientation, see Ehlers, Die Kapetinger, and Hallam and Everard, Capetian France. 7 On the origins of the Robertians and their status in the ninth century, see Werner, “Les Robertiens,” which also offers bibliographic orientation. 8 To my knowledge, there is no contemporary reference to Hugh as “Hugo Magnus,” but during the lifetime of his son Hugh Capet and thereafter, in the first half of the eleventh century, he is referred to as such. Richer, Historia,f.19v, ii.30, 119, may indeed be the earliest textual evidence for use of the epithet: “Hugone videlicet cognomento Magno.” See also Aimo of Fleury, Miracula, ii.3, 99 and 104; Dudo of Saint-Quentin, De moribus et actis, iii.47, 192;iv.81, 236;iv.89, 246; iv.93, 250; and iv.101, 263; Rodulfus Glaber, Histories,i.6, 14;i.8, 18; and ii.1, 50. I suspect that the epithet represents an attempt both to distinguish father and son and to glorify the namesake and lineage of the Capetian king. In any case, for Hugh’s prominence in Frankish affairs in the middle of the century, see below, chapter 11. 9 For the reigns of Odo, Charles, and Robert, see below, chapter 10. I follow Nelson, Charles the Bald, 257, and “Rulers and Government,” NCMH, iii: 102, in identifying Charles as “the 2 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521834872 - Politics and History in the Tenth Century: The Work and World of Richer of Reims Jason Glenn Excerpt More information Introduction Like both his great-uncle and grandfather, Hugh Capet had been legit- imately elected and anointed. Like them, he also had to draw on his mil- itary talents and political connections if he wished to establish and secure his rule, for Charles of Lotharingia did not readily abandon his claim to the throne.10 In 988, Charles seized Laon which had been a Carolingian stronghold throughout the tenth century. And in 989, he took Reims with the help of his nephew, Arnulf, who had succeeded Archbishop Adalbero earlier that year. As Charles’ threat to Hugh’s rule grew, mem- bers of the Frankish political world were increasingly forced to take sides or, perhaps more accurately, to decide how committed they were to their allegiances. Aware of the potential risks and rewards they faced, they weighed their options, reflected on their obligations, and threw their support behind one or another of the men, at least until they had reason to believe that the risks were too great or the rewards insufficient. Then, in the spring of 991, with the conflict in an apparent standoff, the civil war came to an abrupt and, at least in retrospect, decisive end. Thanks to a dramatic sequence of events to be discussed in Part II below, Hugh held Charles safely in his custody, had Arnulf deposed from his office, and replaced him with one of his supporters, a learned and savvy man named Gerbert.11 In the wake of these events, a monk at the monastery of Saint-Remigius just outside Reims wrote and rewrote a history dedicated to Archbishop Gerbert.12 The monk was Richer; the history, his narrative of conflicts among the west Frankish magnates and rulers from the late ninth century to his own day at the end of the tenth. For the earlier portions of his work, Richer drew on a history of the church of Reims and, more extensively, on a set of annals, both written by Flodoard, a canon at the cathedral from early in the century until his death in 966.13 Richer may also have had recourse to oral testimony and written records no longer available to us: he likely relied on the former and on his own observations in his account of more contemporary events.